16-Q-S023_Network_Engineers_Combined_Synopsis-Solicitation.pdf

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

For

Network Engineer Advisory and Assistance Support Services at Barksdale AFB, LA

(i) This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice.

This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. Simplified procedures as outlined in FAR Part 13.5 will be used for the acquisition of this commercial item.

(ii) This solicitation is issued as a request for proposal (RFP). Submit written proposals (oral quotes will not be accepted) on RFP reference number FA6800-16-Q-S023.

(iii) This solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-89.

(iv) This solicitation is a 100% Small Business set-aside. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541519 - Other Computer Related Services with a Small Business Size Standard of $27.5M.

(v) The purpose of this combined synopsis and solicitation is for support in the development, testing, fielding, and sustainment of various enterprise networks and command and control systems in accordance with the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS). The contractor shall provide two (2) Contracted Man-year Equivalents (CMEs) to provide “on-site” support of this requirement. The bid schedule and the contract CLIN schedule are:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

CLIN 0001

On-Site Network Engineer A&AS Services

FFP

Provide two (2) Contracted Man-year Equivalents (CMEs) to provide “on-site” Network Engineer Advisory and Assistance Support Services IAW the PWS.

Period of Performance is 29 Sep 16 – 28 Sep 17

12 Months

CLIN 0002

Travel

FFP

Periodic travel from Barksdale AFB to the other seven AFGSC bases IAW para 2.2 of the PWS. Contractor shall only invoice for their direct costs and are prohibited from invoicing for any profit, overhead, G&A, etc.

12 Jobs NTE $2,000 NTE $24,000

NOTE TO OFFERORS--NO BID IS

REQUIRED FOR THIS CLIN

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

CLIN 1001

On-Site Network Engineer A&AS Services

FFP

Option Year 1 (Same description as CLIN 0001 except Period of Performance is 29 Sep 17 – 28 Sep 18)

12 Months

CLIN 1002

Travel

FFP

Option Period 1 (Same description as CLIN 0002)

NOTE TO OFFERORS--NO BID IS

REQUIRED FOR THIS CLIN

12 Jobs NTE $2,000 NTE $24,000

CLIN 2001

On-Site Network Engineer A&AS Services

FFP

Option Year 2 (Same description as CLIN 0001 except Period of Performance is 29 Sep 18 – 28 Sep 19)

12 Months

CLIN 2002

Travel

FFP

Option Period 1 (Same description as CLIN 0002)

NOTE TO OFFERORS--NO BID IS

REQUIRED FOR THIS CLIN

12 Jobs NTE $2,000 NTE $24,000

(vi) Refer to the attached PWS for a detailed description of requirements for the service being acquired.

(vii) Period of Performance is as follows:

- Base Period (29 Sep 2016 - 28 Sep 2017);

- Option Period 1 (29 Sep 2017 - 28 Sep 2018);

- Option Period 2 (29 Sep 2018 - 28 Sep 2019)

(viii) 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial, applies to this acquisition. With the following addendum:

52.212-1 Addendum

The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 90 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. General Instructions

1.1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the proposal, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. The proposal must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation. The response shall consist of three (3) separate proposal volumes: Volume I – Mission Capability (Technical), Volume II – Price, and Volume III – Past Performance Information.

1.2. ONLY THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PROVIDE

FOR PROPER EVALUATIONS IS REQUESTED. EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO

KEEP OFFERS AS CONCISE AS POSSIBLE WITH THE EMPHASIS BEING ON

PROVIDING INFORMATION ESSENTIAL FOR PROPER EVALUATION. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail to provide for adequate evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Submitted documents must contain adequate information to enable the evaluation board to fully ascertain offerors capability to perform contract requirements, must meet the requirements of the RFP, and must address the evaluation factors for award.

1.3. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and, if in the contracting officer’s opinion adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists offerors may be required to submit information other than cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness.

Offerors are cautioned to submit their best pricing and technical information up-front.

1.4. All information contained in the proposal that an offeror feels is “Proprietary Information”, and therefore, not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), should be labeled “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104”.

1.5. Offerors shall acknowledge, in writing, awareness of all amendments to the solicitation.

1.6. Specific Instructions:

1.6.1. Documents submitted in response to this solicitation must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

- Requirements of the solicitation (Item Numbers) and Performance Work Statement (PWS), and government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS.

- Evaluation Factors for Award.

2. Formal Communications

2.1. Any formal communication shall be submitted in writing (via email) to the POCs below. It is the offeror’s responsibility to confirm receipt of all formal communications.

AFICA/KGQ

Capt John Sidor 841 Fairchild Ave, Room 327 Barksdale AFB, LA 71110 Email: john.sidor@us.af.mil Reference: Solicitation FA6800-16-Q-S023

3. Advanced Questions

3.1. Advanced questions concerning this solicitation may be submitted in writing (via email) to the POC listed above, clearly marked as “Advanced Questions” to include solicitation number, name of person submitting the question(s), company name, and phone number. Each question should reference the specific section, paragraph, and/or attachment number of the solicitation or PWS (as applicable).

3.2. Advanced questions must be received by AFICA/KGQ, NLT 26 August 2016 by 3:00 PM (CST) in order for an appropriate response to be given.

4. Submission of Proposals

4.1. The original proposal and copies as specified in this document shall be sent to the issuing office on or before the date and time specified in this solicitation. Please mark all packages as follows:

AFICA/KGQ

ATTN: Capt John Sidor 841 Fairchild Ave, Bldg 5541, Suite 327 Barksdale AFB, LA 71110

Ref: Solicitation No. FA6800-16-Q-S023, Volume # and Title

**DO NOT OPEN IN MAIL ROOM**

4.2. Offerors are cautioned to strictly comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure submission of a complete proposal. Failure to furnish a complete proposal at the time of proposal submission may result in the proposal being considered unawardable by the Government and eliminated from consideration for award. Late proposal will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) “Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers”. If the proposal is received late, the Government will retain the unopened proposal; however, the proposal will not be evaluated or considered for award.

5. Proposal Preparation Instructions

5.1. The following instructions prescribes the format for proposals, and describes the approach to be used for the development and presentation of the proposal data. The proposal shall include all of the information requested in the specified instructions. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation and may result in a determination that the proposal is unawardable. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the PWS will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will enable the Government to easily understand the proposal and perform a thorough and fair evaluation. The Government may incorporate into the contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful offeror’s proposal as revised and supplemented through the Final Proposal Revision submitted in response to the solicitation.

5.2. Proposal Volumes. Proposals shall be prepared in three (3) separate and distinct volumes:

Volume I – Mission Capability (Technical) Volume II – Price Volume III – Past Performance

5.3. Proposal Format. Specific guidance regarding format and content is discussed in the following paragraphs. The Government will only read/evaluate the maximum number of pages allowed. The proposal content should be formatted as follows:

a. Text: Single-spaced and printed on double-sides paper. Each side counts as 1 page (e.g.

two pages per sheet of paper).

b. Font Size: Microsoft Office Word, Times New Roman, 12 font (except for headlines, titles, etc.).

c. Margins: One inch (1”) left, right, top, bottom.

d. Paper Size: 8½” x 11” with a background color of white or ivory stock only.

e. Page Numbering: Sequential (i.e. 1 through 100).

Note: The font size requirements do not apply to charts, graphs, tables, etc.; however, the font size must be reasonable and easily readable. Also, page numbering within each volume must be sequential throughout the entire document. New chapters/sections do not restart the page numbering for that volume.

5.4. Electronic Copies. Electronic copies shall be submitted on CD-ROM or DVD using Microsoft Office 97 through Microsoft Office 2013, or Adobe PDF Version X or earlier.

Offerors may use JPEG for charts or “screen shots”.

Offerors shall name files using standard naming conventions (i.e. filename.docx for MS Word, MS Excel, filename.pdf for Portable Document Format, etc.). DO NOT submit any documents in PDF format that are copied as “images” or Windows Photo Gallery, etc. PDF files shall enable textual search and copy functions. Each volume shall be in a single searchable, editable, file and stored in a folder that corresponds to the proposal volume it represents. The files shall be names in an unambiguous manner using plain language text which facilitates the evaluator’s ease of accessing the files for evaluation. Offerors shall insert the file name in the header of each document. All disks shall be virus checked prior to submission. Replacement disks may be required to update the final proposal resulting from any discussions, should they occur.

Electronic copies of all proposal information are required for each volume. Information submitted in the electronic format shall not exceed the page limits stated below for each hard copy volume. If there are variances between the paper copy and the electronic copy, the paper copy will take precedence.

5.5. Copies and Page Limit. Evaluators will only read up to the maximum number of pages specified. All pages provided by the offeror in excess of the stated limitations will be returned to the offeror unread. The Government will not include the following in the page limitations: Cover page(s), title pages, table of contents, tab/section divider pages, technical definition page(s), acronym list, or cross reference matrix. Note: These pages will be counted if they contain any other information (i.e. diagrams, extraneous data, etc.). Pages marked “This Page Intentionally Left Blank” will also not be counted. Page limitations is subject to exclusions stated in the paragraph titled “Exceptions” below. Copy requirements and page limitations are as follows:

VOL TITLE

PAPER

COPIES

CD ROM Page Limit Notes

I* MISSION CAPABILITY 3*** 1 50 2 of 3 redacted II PRICE 2 1 None

III** PAST PERFORMANCE 2 1 None

* Executive Summary shall be included in Volume I – Mission Capability, limited to 2 pages, and does not count against the 50 page limit for that volume. Résumés for each CME proposed should be tailored to address the respective evaluation criteria and shall not be more than three

(3) pages each. Offerors are required to only submit one (1) résumé per CME proposed.

** Past Performance Information (PPI) contract references – see instructions for Volume III – Past Performance, paragraph 9.

*** In the “Notes” column of the above table, 2 of the 3 required copies of the Mission Capability volume shall be redacted for the following information: Company name and any other specific identifying trademarks, symbols, or emblems; company addresses and contact information; and CME résumés name and any other Personally Identifiable Information (PII).

5.6. “Original” Copy. One copy of each volume (Mission Capability, Price, and Past Performance) shall be marked “Original”.

5.7. Cross Referencing – Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

6. Exceptions

6.1. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, the offeror must clearly indicate such exception(s) in the appropriate volume along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and what benefit it accrues to the Government. All substantive exceptions to the solicitation requirements and supporting rationale shall be identified as such and consolidated into an overview section of the subject volume. An overview section is only required if the offeror takes exception to any requirements in the solicitation (the overview section will not be included in the proposal page limitation described above). While offerors may propose exceptions to the solicitation requirements, the Government is not obligated to accept or consider such exceptions. Further, exceptions could result in an unacceptable offer. Any change to the requirement as a result of accepting an exception shall be reflected within the resultant contract.

6.2. In the event the offeror takes no exception to the stated requirements, a statement to this effect is required at the front of each subject volume.

7. Instruction for Volume I – Mission Capability (Technical)

7.1. To facilitate the evaluation, the Mission Capability volume should be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements for the accomplishment of the effort. Statements that the offeror understand, can, or will comply with the PWS (including Air Force (AF) publications, technical requirements, etc.);

statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof; and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed”, “well known techniques will be used”, etc., will be considered unacceptable.

Offerors should note that data submitted prior to the proposal submission including data submitted for current contracts and other solicitations will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation. Therefore, such data should not be relied upon nor incorporated in the technical proposal by reference. Offerors shall address the requirements noted in this section by imperative verbs regardless of whether such requirements are preceded by “the offeror shall”. The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, be prepared in a form consistent with the technical criteria set forth in 52.212-2 Addendum, Basis of Award, of this solicitation. All information that the offeror deems appropriate to address for this factor and its subfactors must be included in the proposal in an orderly format. The technical volume shall address all the technical subfactors.

7.2. Technical Contents:

A. Table of Contents – A table of contents shall be included in Volume I. Each subfactor and section shall be clearly marked and tabbed for easy reference. The pages shall be numbered sequentially in a consistent manner as stated under Proposal Preparation Instructions.

B. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms – Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

C. Executive Summary – Included in this volume is the offeror’s Executive Summary (limit is two (2) pages).

D. Summary – Describe the nature or portion of the work on the proposed effort to be performed by the offeror and any proposed subcontractor, partner, and/or joint venture partner(s). Also, estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by each member. Limit this information to one (1) page.

E. Technical Solution – The purpose of this section is to allow the offeror to set forth in the most comprehensive manner its understanding of the program requirements and to demonstrate its ability to meet the evaluation requirements of 52.212-2 Addendum, Basis of Award, Factor A – Mission Capability (Technical). In this section, the offeror shall present a clear and concise description of how it plans to meet contract requirements. The offeror shall describe the performance standard that have been established in each area and explain how performance standards will be met or exceeded. This section shall not contain any pricing data. The offeror shall describe their proposed understanding of the program requirements and demonstrate their ability to meet the evaluation requirements of Subfactors 1-5, as described in 52.212-2 Addendum, Basis of Award. The technical section shall be completed as follows:

1. Subfactor 1: Network Engineer 1 (1 CME)

2. Subfactor 2: Network Engineer 2 (1 CME)

3. Subfactor 3: Contractor Facility Clearance

4. Subfactor 4: Total Compensation Plan

5. Subfactor 5: CME Résumé Certification

7.3. Offerors are reminded to only submit one (1) candidate per CME (2 total) and to tailor each résumé to address the evaluation criteria (maximum of 3 pages per résumé, copies of IT Certification are also required, but not included in the 3-page limit ). Although a signed “Letter of Intent” or similar document for each CME is not required, each proposed CME must be actively seeking employment and must have been in contact with your company in the past expressing a desire to be employed by your company (job fairs, interviews for previous positions, etc.).

If using a “candidate pool” of résumés that your HR department may have on file, at a minimum, offerors are required to verify the proposed candidates are still seeking employment and will consider filling a position on this contract should your company be the successful offeror. Offerors are prohibited from submitting candidates with whom they have not any interaction with in the past (i.e. simply pulling résumés from LinkedIn, Monster.com, etc.).

7.4. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation and may result in a determination that the proposal is unawardable. Award CANNOT be made to an unawardable offeror.

8. Instructions for Volume II – Price

8.1. The offeror shall complete the Schedule of Supplies and Services (CLINs) in section “v” of the RFP by inserting the price elements (unit price and extended amount) for all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract line item numbers (CLINs) for the Base Year and all Option Years. The completed schedule must be returned with the solicitation as part of the Price Proposal. Any offer received without the completed schedule will be determined nonresponsive and will not be considered for award. For ease of administration, all Unit prices must be in whole dollar values (e.g. $10.00). The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units (ensure you adjust for any rounding of figures done by MS Excel, etc.).

8.2. Travel CLINs. A Not-To-Exceed (NTE) amount has been pre-established for these CLINs.

These pre-established amounts are to be included in the offerors proposal. No bid is required for the Travel CLINs.

8.3. Representations and Certifications. Complete the required Representations and Certifications or indicate if information is contained in the System for Award Management (SAM) located at https://www.sam.gov.

8.4. Supporting Price Backup Data. Certified cost or pricing data is not required; however, IAW FAR 15.403-4, the Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals if the Government determines it is necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination, and if in the Contracting Officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required.

However, if at any time during this competition, the Contracting Officer determined that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information other than certified cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness.

9. Instructions for Volume III – Past Performance

9.1. The Past Performance volume and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are due no later than 09 September 2016, 4:00 PM CST. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure the contracting office receives the past performance information. The past performance information shall be provided in a format that facilitates an easy assessment according to the past performance evaluation criteria in 52.212-2 Addendum, Basis of Award, of this solicitation.

Specific guidelines and requirements about volume content and format are provided in this section.

9.2. Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References. Offerors may provide information for a maximum of three (3) different contracts and/or task order for which they have served as the prime contractor, a subcontractor, a partner, or a joint venture partner that are recent and relevant as defined in this solicitation. In addition, the offeror may provide PPI for a maximum of three (3) different contracts and/or task orders for each proposed subcontractor, proposed partner, and/or proposed joint venture partner that are recent and relevant as defined in this solicitation. To clarify, if an offeror has two subcontractors or partners, the offeror may submit three (3) PPI references as the prime contractor and three (3) PPI references for each subcontractor for a total of up to nine (9) PPI references.

9.3. Past Performance Recency. Recency is defined as active contract performance during the three (3) years, but not less than six (6) months, preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation.

9.4. Past Performance Relevancy. Offerors shall submit past performance information on contracts they consider relevant to this effort. This information should include rationale supporting their assertion of relevance. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contract are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. When applicable, offerors shall categorize and cross reference the relevance of the information into the specific relevancy criteria as defined in 52.212-2 Addendum, Basis of Award, of this solicitation.

9.5. PPI Contents. The Past Performance volume shall contain the following sections (at a minimum):

A. Table of Contents - A table of contents shall be included in Volume III. Each PPI reference and section shall be clearly marked and tabbed for easy reference. The pages shall be numbered sequentially in a consistent manner as stated under Proposal Preparation Instructions.

B. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms – Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

C. Table of Past Performance Information Contract References – To facilitate the evaluation process, offerors shall provide a table of the contract references of government agencies and commercial concerns. References for which there are formal performance documents such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) are preferred.

Please include the following information in the table:

1. For references where the offeror performed as the Prime contractor:

a. Prime Contract Number in Reference

b. Prime Contract Dollar Value

c. Prime Contract Period of Performance

d. Company/Organization Name

e. Company/Organization Full Address

f. Company/Organization Phone Number and/or Email Address

g. Prime Contractor’s CAGE Code

h. Prime Contractor’s DUNS Number

i. Current Point of Contact (POC) (i.e. Contracting Officer, Program Manager, etc.)

j. Current POC Phone Number(s) and/or Email Address

2. For references where the offeror performed as a Subcontractor:

a. Prime Contract Number in Reference

b. Prime Contract Dollar Value

c. Prime Contract Period of Performance

d. Prime Contractor’s Name

e. Prime Contractor’s Full Address

f. Prime Contractor’s Phone Number

g. Prime Contractor’s CAGE Code

h. Prime Contractor’s DUNS Number

i. Current POC

j. Current POC Phone Number(s) and/or Email Address

k. Subcontract/Order Number in Reference

l. Subcontract Dollar Value

m. Subcontract Period of Performance

n. Subcontractor’s Name

o. Subcontractor’s Full Address

p. Subcontractor’s Phone Number and/or Email Address

q. Subcontractors CAGE Code

r. Subcontractor’s DUNS Number

s. Current POC

t. Current POC Phone Number(s) and/or Email Address

D. Offeror and Subcontractor, Partner, and/or Joint Venture Partner (if applicable) Past and Present Performance Contract References - If a teaming arrangement, partner arrangement, or joint venture is contemplated, offerors must provide complete information as to the arrangement; including any recent and relevant past performance information (as required) on previous partner arrangements with the same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present recent and relevant references. The offeror and any Subcontractors, Partners, and/or Joint Venture Partners shall submit the following under this section:

1. Submit one (1) sheet for each contract reference to include an overview of the work performed, what capacity they served under the reference (i.e. prime contractor, subcontractor, partner, etc.), the offeror’s assessment of how the contract reference is relevant to the Relevancy Criteria, and any additional significant details.

2. Submit completed CPARs or similar reports used to record past performance data. If a CPAR or another evaluation form has been completed for a contractor’s work, but the contracting office for that requirement will not release the information to the offeror, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer (CO) for this solicitation. The offeror should provide the contract number for the CPAR, and a name and telephone number of the POC from which the past performance information should be obtained. If the offeror does not have Government past/present performance references, the offeror shall provide references from commercial/private industry sources. If the offeror is providing information for a contract with a non-Governmental organization, the information provided should be the same as that required on the CPAR form.

The offeror shall not alter in any way the information provided by any other party (including extracting or paraphrasing portions of past performance). Past performance form and reports shall be provided unaltered in their entirety.

3. Offerors Rebuttal of Adverse Past Performance Information (if applicable):

The offeror is allowed to provide a rebuttal to unfavorable past performance information if it did not do so on the original report form. The offeror shall limit this rebuttal to addressing the specific negative comments. The offeror shall clearly distinguish between any rebuttal already provided on a form or report and those rebuttals provided specifically for the purpose of this proposal.

4. Subcontractor Consent (if applicable): Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s consent. Since past performance information is proprietary source selection information, the prime contractor must submit, with their proposal, the subcontractor’s/teaming partner’s consent for the Government to disclose its past performance information to the prime during exchanges and debriefs.

E. Organization Structure Change History - Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past performance efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, offerors should include, in this proposal volume, a chart or schedule describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, offerors should show how these changes impact the relevancy of any efforts identified for past performance evaluation/performance assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources, as well as information provided by the offeror(s), the chart or schedule should be both specifically applicable to the efforts identified; and general enough to apply to efforts for which the Government received information from other sources.

9.6. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). When completed CPARS or similar reports are submitted to reflect past performance data, a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is not required. Offerors without formal documented Government Contract Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) shall send a PPQ to each performance reference cited. The responsibility to send out the form rests solely with the offeror. The information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and not releasable outside of the Government. Completed PPQs shall be sent directly from the reference to this office via email to Capt John Sidor (john.sidor@us.af.mil). Offerors must ensure that completed PPQs are submitted to this office no later than the proposal receipt date established in this solicitation.

9.7. Past Performance Information from Other Sources. Past performance information for contracts not listed by the offeror and/or past performance information for contracts of planned subcontractor(s) may also be evaluated. References other than those identified by the offeror may be contacted by the Government and the information obtained may be used in the evaluation of the offeror’s past performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of demonstrating relevancy and providing current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

9.8. Offerors Rebuttal of Adverse Past Performance Information (if applicable). The offeror is allowed to provide a rebuttal to unfavorable past performance information if it did not do so on the original report form. The offeror shall limit this rebuttal to addressing the specific negative comments. The offeror shall clearly distinguish between any rebuttal already provided on a form or report and those rebuttals provided specifically for the purpose of this proposal.

9.9. Additional Data. The Government may ask questions of, conduct interviews with, and/or request additional performance information from any of the past performance references submitted as part of the offeror’s proposal. Past performance information may be obtained from sources such as the Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval Systems (PPIRS), questionnaires tailored for the subject requirement, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with PMs, COs, and Award Fee Determining Officials, and other sources known to the Government. Available information from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments may be used if the information is recent and relevant. The recency and relevancy of the past performance information are important in determining the contracts, programs, and efforts that will be reviewed. The Government reserves the right to obtain more past performance data from any source that it deems appropriate.

10. Debriefing of Offerors

10.1. Debriefings are conducted with the goal of identifying, to unsuccessful offerors, where changes can be made to improve future source selection participation.

10.2. Successful or unsuccessful offerors may request debriefings by providing a written request to the procuring Contracting Officer. Debriefings shall be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.505(a)(1) for pre-award debriefings and FAR 15.506(d) for post-award debriefings.

11. Disposition of Unsuccessful Proposals

11.1. In compliance with FAR Subpart 4.8, the Government will retain one hard copy of all unsuccessful proposals; all additional copies will be destroyed by the Government.

(End of Addendum)

(ix) 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition as follows:

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Jan 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1) Technical Acceptability

2) Price

3) Past Performance

Technical acceptability and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal when compared to price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)

52.212-2 Addendum

1. Basis of Award

1.1. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using the Subjective Tradeoff, specifically the Price – Past Performance Tradeoff (PPT), source selection process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items; Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation; DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 April 2016; and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, Source Selection. One award will be made as a result of this solicitation to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements with an “Acceptable” rating in all technical subfactors. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror. The PPT source selection process only permits tradeoffs between price and past performance factors.

1.2. IAW FAR 15.306, Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, and FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and reserves the right to open discussions, or to award a contract without discussions, with offerors (except clarifications as describes in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determined them to be necessary.

1.3. The Government reserves the right to incorporate into this contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation and as revised and supplemented through the date of Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the terms and conditions of this contract take precedence over any ambiguity in the contractor’s proposal. In those areas where the contractor’s proposal exceeds the stated PWS requirements, the contractor’s proposal is binding and prevails. The contractor is expected and required to adhere to their proposed approach in meeting the contract requirements.

1.4. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

2. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)

2.1. The Government reserves the right to open discussions, or to award without discussions, based on the initial proposals submitted. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to submit their best proposal initially. However, discussions may be held and result in FPRs. The intent of FPRs is for price changes only; however, technical changes will be evaluated. The Government cautions offerors not to change material aspects of their technical proposals as this could render the offeror’s proposal technically unacceptable, and therefore, unawardable. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (i.e. prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.). Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FRP that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. The Government intends to award after receipt of FPRs without obtaining any further revisions or conducting any further discussions.

3. Evaluation Methodology

3.1. The award decision will be made on the basis of Price – Past Performance Tradeoff. In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and evaluation factor requirements; and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror.

3.2. Proposals will be evaluated using three (3) Factors: (A) Mission Capability (Technical), (B) Price, and (C) Past Performance. There are five (5) Technical Subfactors within the Mission Capability Factor. Technical acceptability and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal when compared to price.

3.3. Proposals will be evaluated by Mission Capability (Technical), Price, and Past Performance.

Technical will be evaluated for acceptability at the Subfactor level, price will be evaluated to determine if it is fair and reasonable, and past performance will be determined using a Confidence Assessment. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, open discussions, or to establish a competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c). If discussions are utilized, Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be issued to those offerors in the competitive range allowing them the opportunity to revise their proposals. Once the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) determines that all ENs have been satisfactorily answered, discussions will be closed. Once discussions have concluded, if an offeror’s proposal has an “Unacceptable” rating for any Technical Subfactor, this proposal will be unawardable. Proposals shall meet the PWS requirements and the evaluation criteria requirements in order to be considered for award.

4. Factor A – Mission Capability (Technical)

4.1. Initially, the Government Technical Evaluation Team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis assigning one of the ratings described below at the Subfactor level; an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. The focus is on the ability of the offeror’s proposal to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS. Technical proposals will be assessed a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” at the subfactor level IAW Table C-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 April 2016. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each Technical Subfactor. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. In assessing the acceptability of each Subfactor, any weaknesses or deficiencies will be noted in accordance with the definitions located in Section 5, Definitions, of the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Proposals that receive weaknesses in a Subfactor may receive an “Unacceptable” Subfactor rating depending on the nature of the weakness. Proposals that receive a deficiency in a Subfactor will receive an “Unacceptable” Subfactor rating.

Table C-1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Method Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4.2. Offerors are again reminded to only submit one candidate per CME (2 total) and to tailor each résumé to address the evaluation criteria (maximum of 3 pages per résumé, copies of IT Certification are also required, but not included in the 3-page limit). Although a signed “Letter of Intent” or similar document for each CME is not required, each proposed CME must be actively seeking employment and must have been in contact with your company in the past expressing a desire to be employed by your company (job fairs, interviews for previous positions, etc.). If using a “candidate pool” of résumés that your HR department may have on file, at a minimum, offerors are required to verify the proposed candidates are still seeking employment and will consider filling a position on this contract should your company be the successful offeror. Offerors are prohibited from submitting candidates with whom they have not any interaction with in the past (i.e. simply pulling résumés from LinkedIn, Monster.com, etc.).

4.3. Mission Capability (Technical) Subfactors

A. Subfactor 1 –Network Engineer 1 of 2 (1 CME). The offeror’s proposed approach must provide a qualified CME who can successfully accomplish mission requirements.

This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposed CME meets the following requirements IAW PWS paragraph 2.1.1:

a. CME must have a minimum of 6 years of experience managing a mixture of voice/video/data transmission systems; OR possess a BS degree in computers systems, network engineering or related field from an accredited college or university and a minimum 3 years of experience managing a mixture of voice/video/data transmission systems.

b. CME must possess a current IT certifications for technical areas (CCNA, Security + or equivalent certification in assigned applications and technologies). Copies of the certification must be provided as part of the technical volume (does not count against the 3 page limit for résumés)

c. CME must possess a minimum of 2 years’ experience as a DOD base IT technician with the following types of architecture: Cisco systems, NIPR, SIPR.

d. CME must possess a minimum of 2 years’ experience as a project manager.

e. CME must possess a minimum of 2 years’ experience with mixture of Air Force IT infrastructure, support, & acquisition/management processes.

f. CME must possess a minimum of 2 years’ experience managing multiple technical/telecom related projects.

g. CME must possess a minimum of an active SECRET Clearance.

B. Subfactor 2 – Network Engineer 2 of 2 (1 CME). The offeror’s proposed approach must provide a qualified CME who can successfully accomplish mission requirements.

This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposed CME meets the following requirements IAW PWS paragraph 2.1.1:

a. CME must have a minimum of 6 years of experience managing a mixture of voice/video/data transmission systems; OR possess a BS degree in computers systems, network engineering or related field from an accredited college or university and a minimum 3 years of experience managing a mixture of voice/video/data transmission systems.

b. CME must possess a current IT certifications for technical areas (CCNA, Security + or equivalent certification in assigned applications and technologies). Copies of the certification must be provided as part of the technical volume (does not count against the 3 page limit for résumés)

c. CME must possess a minimum of 2 years’ experience as a DOD base IT technician with the following types of architecture: Cisco systems, NIPR, SIPR.

d. CME must possess a minimum of 2 years’ experience as a project manager.

e. CME must possess a minimum of 2 years’ experience with mixture of Air Force IT infrastructure, support, & acquisition/management processes.

f. CME must possess a minimum of 2 years’ experience managing multiple technical/telecom related projects.

g. CME must possess a minimum of an active SECRET Clearance.

C. Subfactor 3 – Facility Clearance. Offeror must provide evidence that their company possesses a minimum of an active (final adjudicated) SECRET Facility Clearance from the Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of proposal submission IAW PWS paragraph 2.3.1.

D. Subfactor 4 – Total Compensation Plan. IAW FAR 52.222-46, as part of their technical proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement

E. Subfactor 5 - CME Résumé Certification

The Government request verification that the proposed CMEs are actively seeking employment at the time of proposal submission or that the proposed CMEs have given their consent for the offeror to use their résumés. The offeror will receive an acceptable rating for this subfactor if the offeror’s proposal details:

a. Signed CME Résumé Certification Form (Attachment 3) which certifies that each proposed CME is actively seeking employment and has been in contact with your company expressing a desire to be employed by your company (job fairs, interviews for previous positions, etc.) or that the proposed CMEs have given their consent for the offeror to use their résumés.

5. Factor B – Price

5.1. Next, the Government shall rank all technically acceptable offers by price, including all option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.